296 ADAPTATION AND PROGRESS 
Social control is distinguished from class control by the fact 
that in the latter case society being on the competitive basis, “‘ the 
hopelessly poor and wretched are, to a large extent, the weak and 
incompetent who have accumulated at the lower end of the social 
scale, because they or their parents have failed to meet the tests 
of the competitive system.” In this case control is largely in the 
hands of the efficient and in the interest of the social whole, 
Ross assumes in the above that the present competitive system 
is a success in producing social segregation on the basis of native 
ability and social worth, — a questionable assumption. 
The vicissitudes of social control, he points out, are primarily 
in response to social needs, and of these the economic are con- 
sidered of first importance.1 Conflict of groups and conflict 
of classes within the group are also recognized as potent causes 
of change, the class conflict being due not alone to sharp conflict 
of interest but to great contrast of means and a great inequality of 
opportunity? ‘“ Another cause of vicissitude,” he says, “‘ is 
change in the culture and habits of a people’ whether due to fresh 
knowledge, new ideas, foreign influences, or novel experiences.* 
Ross divides the supports of order into two groups, the ethical, 
including public opinion, suggestion, personal ideals, social 
religion, art, and social valuations based on sentiment rather than 
judgment of social utility, and the political, including law, belief, 
ceremony, education and illusion, — the last, ‘‘ frequently the 
means deliberately chosen in order to reach certain ends.” 4 The 
political supports are instruments of the ethical. 
He believes that social control by the hero, by custom, by 
supernatural religion, and by mob, ban or boycott, is passing, and 
that enlightened self-interest, suggestion, moral idealism and 
social religion will become increasingly potent.® 
In discussing the limits of social control he takes a decided 
stand against all social theories that place the good of the group 
above that of its constituent members, holding that “ society is 
not a being, but just people in their collective capacity,” and 
1 Social Control, p. 395. 4 Tbid., p. 411. 
2 Tbid., p. 402. 5 Ibid., pp. 415-416. 
3 Ibid., p. 404. 
